Posted on 02/25/2013 6:19:50 AM PST by blam
Court Rules There Is No Right To Carry A Concealed Weapon
Larry Bodine, Lawyers.com
February 25, 2013, 6:42 AM
In a sweeping ruling, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. The broad wording of the decision in Peterson v. Martinez creates a far-reaching national precedent against carrying a loaded handgun outside the home.
The case began on a narrow point – a challenge by a Washington State man against Colorado’s law to issue CHL permits (“Concealed Handgun License”) only to state residents. But the final ruling held, “In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.”
The federal court also rejected arguments that Colorado’s CHL law infringed on the the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
To bullet-proof the ruling against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit recounted numerous court rulings and state laws dating back to 1813, and based its ruling on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases.
The View from the Ground
Colorado law allows people to have a firearm in their homes, places of business and cars. But to carry a concealed weapon in public, a state resident must apply to a local sheriff to get a permit. Peterson claimed that the law left him “completely disarmed.”
Sheriffs use locally-maintained databases to check for misdemeanor and municipal court convictions involving drugs, alcohol or violence that will disqualify a citizen. The local databases also include mental health contacts, 911 calls that do not result in an arrest, a history of aggressive driving, juvenile arrest records, plea agreements that result
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
+1
Depends upon their definition of “Tyrannical” “is”...
Putting an honest question to a tyrannical entity, compelling them to define themselves for our own edification is futile...
It’s a pipe dream...
The most we can hope for is to remove them with the means we have at hand...When we lose that ability to effect change at the polls, then it may be time to clear leather and go to work...Until then, they will be as tyrranical as we allow them to be...
Just food for thought...
And why pray tell should anyone listen to the court? Our Government has violated the Constitution and the law. They are not being held accountable. Why shouldn’t American Citizens do the same?
This is what dual standards lead to. You asked for it, you got it. No respect for authority. I carry a gun, I couldn’t care less who says I can’t. I’m going to carry to protect myself and my family. Have a problem with that? Get over it.
That was here in Florida, Citrus county, and the man had any charges dismissed. The cop was “reprimanded.”
Florida State Supreme Court stated several years ago that incidental exposure of a concealed weapon is NOT considered brandishing. That included printing.
great news!! I still hope he sues them
“To bullet-proof the ruling against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit recounted numerous court rulings and state laws dating back to 1813, and based its ruling on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases. “
I’m not impressed. Eaarlier Court decisions - state and federal - have been found to be in conflict with the Constitution by later courts.
Also, an anti-gun court can pick and choose decisions with which it agrees and disregard those with which it does not.
The Second Amendment clearly gives citizens the the right to “keep” arms - meaing posses and ALSO clearly states “and bear” meaning to CARRY arms.
If the Tenth Circuit is implying that CONCEALED weapons can be banned - it MUST, then recognize the right to carry UNCONCEALED Weapons must be offered as an alternative to the citizenry.
As Mark Levin has often stated, the Federal Courts are GREAT at basing bad decisions on questionable earlier decisions and so on backwards, deviating from the original intent of the Constitution which each generation of re-interpretation.
I believe most judges have to go potty like any other person, even a child. From this status I have to weigh all the other fact of life.
So long as the right to bear arms (carry) is unrestricted, I see no constitutional problem with a requirement that arms be borne openly (even to the point of forbidding concealed carry).
I didn’t read too deeply, but there’s a problem with this only if open carry is not permitted in the locality. If it isn’t this needs to be overturned on appeal (and given Heller as precedent most likely will be.)
LOL.... Exactly!
The title leads me to believe that no one can legally carry a concealed firearm but at the end, it clearly states that you can if you have a permit.
That's pretty consistent with almost all the states.......
- Between CJ Roberts, SCOTUS, and assorted courts editing and/or rewriting laws
- The citizens have lost faith and no longer respect or will obey the proclamations and decisions of the Judiciary
Everyone will “fly under the radar” when Skeeter and SCOTUS violate the US Constitution......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.